Shared Prosperity

30May07

Do you remember that class back in school in which you got put into a group of other kids and had to work as a team on a project and everyone in the team got the same grade at the end?

I seem to remember doing several of those throughout school. The one thing I recall is that without fail, 1 or 2 people in the group ended up doing about 80-90% of the work. The rest of the group was happy to give advice and wanted to be sure and have their say in how the project was done, but for the most part advice was all they contributed.

Have no fear, Hillary is here! This is how she wants to run our country. She wants to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared prosperity and responsibility. What she doesn’t mention is that when reality sets in there will be more sharing of prosperity than of responsibility. That’s the natural order of things.

Hillary doesn’t want to admit that the CEOs who make those megabucks she wants to redistribute are the same people who create millions of jobs for the rest of us. If you break the system that allows rich corporate CEOs to exist, you break the system that creates the prosperity Hillary wants to “share.”

Don’t say I didn’t warn you…

We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says


Filed under: Brain Fart   |  

5 Responses to “Shared Prosperity”  

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 Pat O on May 30, 2007 said:

    I am in complete agreement with the argument that people aught to get paid based on their contribution to the earning potential of their company. Obviously, a CEO has a greater impact on the earning potential then a worker within the company. My issue with the current situation is that the ratio is 100:1 or more in favor of the CEO. Is the “right” CEO really worth 100 time as much to the company as the “right” middle manager? CEO in America are paid more than in any other country in the world. I am told this is because productivity in America (income/cost) is higher than any other country in the world. Why then is the American worker not the best paid worker in the world?
    When I read articles like these:
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-04-09-ceo-compensation-report_x.htm
    http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html
    http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/28/news/economy/ceo_pay/index.htm
    http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/21/04ceoland.html

    I know I did not get a double digit pay increase in any of those years. I know I have never received a 20% pay increase in my life. I have no trouble with the fact that the CEO of my company make more than 5 times what I make. I appreciate CEO like Rick Wagoner of GM who are willing to take a pay cut just like they are asking their employees too. Unfortunately this is unusual enough to be newsworthy.
    http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/04/27/gm_ceo_gets_957m_in_2006_compensation/
    I don’t think CEO are more greedy than anyone else, but they do seem to be a little out of touch with the rest of us.

    Pat O

  2. 2 Pat O on May 30, 2007 said:

    BTW, I failed to mention that I will likely not vote for Senator Clinton.

  3. 3 Sally on June 5, 2007 said:

    I likely won’t be voting for Sen. Clinton either, but the salaries those CEO’s collect are absolutley grotesque. The only jobs I see being created are in China where they are paid pennies a day and the big bucks going to the CEO’s—sooo, there’s really no prosperity to share—except among the very elite rich.

  4. 4 brianglass on June 5, 2007 said:

    So what will happens is what always happens in the cycle of countries that start out free and with a minimalist government.
    People get used to freedom and become complacent. Those who founded the country were hard working and grateful and understood the sacrifice that went into their freedom. Those who come later take things for granted and grow lazy.
    The poor (otherwise known as the lazy) figure out they can vote themselves a paycheck. Greedy politicians understand that they can stay in office by forcibly redistributing prosperity to the poor.
    The march toward government programs that support the lazy by stealing from the rich (i.e. the Robin Hood principle) causes government to grow bigger and bigger.
    As government grows bigger, more and more laws are put into place. More laws create a more repressive government.
    Individual rights are diminished and eventually lost for the good of the collective.
    People finally realize they are being oppressed by the government. Their oppressive taxes are protection money to protect them from people who don’t exist anymore (i.e. those who were formerly rich). They have traded the productive rich for the rich oppressive politicians.
    Prosperity is now gone. The pillars that created the prosperity have been yanked out from underneath. Atlas has shrugged.
    Revolution.

  5. 5 Sally on June 6, 2007 said:

    And round and round it goes . . . .

Leave a Reply